Hi, Raphael Parree a écrit : > Hi, > > What I would except in such a case is that the content is transferred to the > next page if there is not enough space on the current page. Is that not how > it is intended (like for example in word-processing programs such as MS > Word)
Well FOP does much better than that. A word processor, seeing that the block won't fit on the current page, will put it on the next page, leaving some ungracious blank space on the current one. On the contrary FOP is able to foresee that a block won't fit on page n, that it must be put on page n+1, and thus will spread the blank space over the first n pages, by playing with the elastic spaces between blocks. In most cases there won't even be a noticeable blank space on page n. Of course to make that work you have to put as many elastic spaces between blocks as possible (e.g. space-after.minimum="10pt" space-after.optimum="12pt" space-after.maximum="15pt"). So as I wrote in my other answer, a block will be clipped only if it can't even fit on a page alone. Vincent > -----Original Message----- > From: Vincent Hennebert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 13 June 2007 08:52 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: keep-together "always" > > Hi, > > Kamal Bhatt a écrit : >> Hi >> I noticed a feature of keep-together="always". Basically it does exactly >> that, even when it doesn't make sense. That is, it will overflow a block >> instead of breaking across a page. Now, I have looked at the standard, >> and it is fairly airy fairy about what keep-together="always" actually >> does: >> >> *"always* >> >> Imposes a keep-together condition with strength "always" in the >> appropriate context." >> >> What appropriate context means is anyone's guess. From what I have read, > > The context here is the line, column or page, depending on whether the > keep has a .within-line, .within-column of .within-page component. > > >> some have interpreted this to mean that "always" is the highest possible >> strength. Seems to me that makes sense. So is this bit of >> "functionality" a bug? > > That's where I think there is room for interpretation and where I got > confused last time. > The common interpretation seems to be that "always" is more than just > the highest possible strength: it prevents the content to be broken even > if it overflows the context (line, column, page). Whereas even a very > high integer value wouldn't prevent that. > > After all this makes sense: we can imagine situations where the user > prefers the content to be clipped rather than broken over two, e.g., > pages. "always" allows for that. If the user simply wants the content to > be broken only if it doesn't fit, they would choose an integer value. > > While not being explicitely described by the spec, the last paragraph of > section 4.8, "Keeps and Breaks", seems to imply that when saying "If not > all of a set of keep conditions [...] can be satisfied...". > > > Vincent --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
